What's up with the Hoplite?

[nomooon]

hoplite is always overpowered I heard they even fought Attilla's Huns and won

 

[Venereus]

'Nuff said!

 

[ShaqFu]

They look ready to take on a tank division!

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Sure an early warrior rush may be powerful, but you'll have to cut so many drones that if your opponent gets a bunker up before you can go to town on his SCVs you'll be at a serious economic disadvantage for the next 10-15 minutes until you can saturate your nodes.

Wait…

The scary thing is that this paragraph made perfect sense to me almost right to the end. I need more sleep, I think ...

 

[Thormodr]

hoplite is always overpowered I heard they even fought Attilla's Huns and won

Considering that the Huns invaded Europe in the 5th century AD/CE and hoplites started to fall out of favour in the 4th century BC/BCE I highly doubt that this could be true. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Lyoncet]

The scary thing is that this paragraph made perfect sense to me almost right to the end. I need more sleep, I think ...

Well, the setup, results, and sentiment are pretty much identical. If you fail to conquer that first civilization or at least get a city and snipe some workers, you've essentially eliminated yourself as an early-game contender. So yeah, get more sleep, but don't worry overmuch.

(Hm. Didn't realize "overmuch" was an actual word. Then again, Firefox does recognize "ginormous.")

 

[stealth_nsk]

Remember reading something about this, but it was as much legend as fact. Could still be true though. I heard it was some minor thracian/macedonian city which was attacked by the huns and the villagers defended themselves the only way they knew how. While hoplites in their traditional form & dress disappeared early, the tactic of a close pike wall lasted until the bayonet

They weren't huns surely. Huns lived near China borders in these times. However there are a lot of nomads in nearby steppes, so they don't really differ

 

[AriochIV]

The Xiongnu tribes that attacked China have frequently been associated with the Huns by various 18th Century scholars, but this is now, as I understand it, highly controversial.

None of which has anything to do with Hoplites.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The Xiongnu tribes that attacked China have frequently been associated with the Huns by various 18th Century scholars, but this is now, as I understand it, highly controversial.

Ethnogenesis theory claims there were no huns at all

 

[Helmling]

So, wait, in all of this, I don't see where anyone has answered my question. The Features thread says the Hoplite has the same power as a spearman...so what's unique about it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

The Features thread says the Hoplite has the same power as a spearman...so what's unique about it?

Hoplite has a power of 9, spearman - 7. That was answered.

 

[Lyoncet]

So, wait, in all of this, I don't see where anyone has answered my question. The Features thread says the Hoplite has the same power as a spearman...so what's unique about it?

In fact, it was answered and you were provided with links in the first response to your question.

 

[Thormodr]

Hoplite has a power of 9, spearman - 7. That was answered.

Spearmen have -7 power!

I guess that confirms undead spearmen then. Now, are they zombies or skeletons?

 

[StStutter]

I'm siding with King Jason on this one. It doesn't matter that both require the same resource unless you have a specific strategy which requires a significant amount of both units. Any shortage can be filled with lesser units or horsemen anyway.

If you're comparing Rome to any other civ, you'll still come up with the same ratio of swordsmen to catapults as Legions to Ballistae. The perk of Rome being that both are overpowered.

No. Picture Rome in the early game who due to a bad starting locatin get only one Iron. They would only get to field a total of 5 of their UUs for only one era. And that's it through the entire game.

Now imagine a civ which has one swordsmen UU and one knight UU. If this civ only had one iron in the early game, they would only get to field the same number of their swordsmen UU as Rome could field legionnaires. But then later down the road, they'll be able to field many more knight UUs because they won't be stifled by their unique lack of iron.

Therefore, the second civ would be able to make more total use of their UU than Rome despite both having limited Iron.

Of course this is assuming that the civ didn't have a lack of horses like they did iron. Hence, the romans are extra dependent on having iron, otherwise their UUs are capped at very low numbers.

 

[Ahriman]

Therefore, the second civ would be able to make more total use of their UU than Rome despite both having limited Iron.

Hence, the romans are extra dependent on having iron, otherwise their UUs are capped at very low numbers.

Right, I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Maybe this is the price you pay for two UUs of the same era, but Greece and Ottomans don't have to pay it.

Now, I'm guessing that Rome will tend to start near iron in the same way that England will likely start near coasts, but that's just a guess.

 

[StStutter]

Right, I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Maybe this is the price you pay for two UUs of the same era, but Greece and Ottomans don't have to pay it.

Now, I'm guessing that Rome will tend to start near iron in the same way that England will likely start near coasts, but that's just a guess.

Lots of people seem to be thinking that Rome is overly powerful. Maybe this is just a way of balancing things.

I hope they don't also have resource dependent starts. Every game would start to look the same.

 

[Ahriman]

Rome is a gamble.

Why should Rome be such a gamble when Greece is not?
Hoplites are resource-free!

Either you conquer a few neighbours before pikes come around and just sit back and let the Glory of Rome do its job; or you have no/little iron and slowly whither and die on the side.

Yeah, cos that sounds fun....

 

[King Jason]

Why should Rome be such a gamble when Greece is not?
Hoplites are resource-free.

And? An army of Hoplites is still outmatched by an army of regular swords... So once again Greece has the same dependancy on a resource as everybody else. To be effective in Greece needs Horses and Iron. Just like everyone else.

Lack of UU isn't the factor that makes the fight a gamble. It's lack of a Strategic resource to build effecient units, period - which affects everybody.

 

[StStutter]

And? An army of Hoplites is still outmatched by an army of regular swords... So once again Greece has the same dependancy on a resource as everybody else. To be effective in Greece needs Horses and Iron. Just like everyone else.

Did you read my post at all. I layed it out do it would be very easy for you to understand.

Greece would still be able to use its UUs which are an essential part of a civ and make it much stronger, whereas Rome would not.

 

[King Jason]

Greece would still be able to use its UUs which are an essential part of a civ and make it much stronger, whereas Rome would not.

This is a problem for any Civ that has a UU that requires a resource. Any of the the civs that have say, a single UU ~ if any one of them require a resource, than they suffer the same problem as Rome ~ the inability to use their UU if they lack the resource.

Picture Rome without UUs ~ They're Still screwed in the ancient era if they don't have Iron.

The problem isn't the inability to use their UUs, it's the problem that they don't have access to iron, period. Which imo is the equivalent of lamenting about Elizibath being trapped far inland on a map ~ It's bad luck - her UA is made irrelevant as is one of her UUs. All it means is that a part of Rome's power, like many other civs, is dependant on how well you roll on your position in the map.

Any civ with a UU that requires a resource is obviously at a disadvantage if they don't have that resource.