Why Are Praets The Best?

[AfterShafter]

Praets are no more of an investment than a regular swordsman (except for the higher base cost). Do people not build swordsmen at higher difficulties? Also, the only 2 move units before tanks are the horse units, workers, and settlers, and the horse resource is even rarer than iron.

Of course people use them on high difficulties - in conjunction with other units. Mainly catapults which, when you have them, make the base strength of the swordsman type unit way less important since the siege units do your heavy lifting for getting cities ready to be taken. This arrangement is why Praets don't shine, and don't do anything special on deity - because, take away their pre-cat rushing ability and all they are is a stronger unit where a stronger unit isn't needed.

As for Levgre, same deal... Why are Praets *so* wonderful if all they really do is slightly bolster an already effective strategy in medieval war? Swordsmen, which are cheaper and have an equivalent 6.6 str attacking a city get the job done when paired with cats.

Iron more common than horses... Maybe - but it's much cheaper to see if you have horses than iron. As in, if I decide, on Immortal or Deity that I'm going to Praet Rush or something, I have to commit myself to relatively a lot of teching that may not help me out in that absolutely game-critical early game... Unless you're inundated with jungle OR want swordsmen fast, you don't need iron working right off the bat generally. On the other hand, the wheel and animal husbandry are two basic low level techs that help you establish your early empire. Going for them early is very rarely a waste - it's something you were going to do anyways.

I stand by my position... Praets are a cumbersome unit, and Deity - heck, even Immortal - pretty much strips them of their sure-thing pre-cat rush ability. That being the case, their `power game`becomes being a slightly more powerful backbone to an army makeup that works well without them. They`re nice, but they're not by any means game breaking.

 

[Pacifist46]

How does this exactly illustrate pratts are the best UU. The only thing it illustrates is you can`t even handle Emperor. And why should we listen to someone who can`t even handle emperor...

Good question...

You don't have to, I suppose, if you're in a different league to me. How about you go setup a deity players only forum, then perhaps us lowly monarch players won't get blasted trying to make a point.

And sorry for posting this completely off the point post. Let's get back on the debate now.

 

[Tephros]

I asked a legit and honest question, if you know the answere please share.

Basically he said the praets allowed him play a level above what he usually does. Does that prove that praetorians are the best UU? No. Did you expect somebody to do that with one anecdotal sentence? Did he have any point at all? Sure. Allowing somebody to play a difficulty level higher is certainly something.

If you're playing at deity that means you obviously are good at the game and have a style or styles that work. I do put more weight on the opinions of deity-level players. But does that mean a deity-level player cannot possibly learn anything from anybody who doesn't play on deity? No. Does that mean there is no other way of playing the game besides how you play? No.

I am getting tired and tired of seeing the same old history repeat. Someone comes on here, and ends up screaming FOUL... ZOMG.. OVERPOWERED.... and then we end up with a stir again in the community and another silly debate on what UU needs to be nerfed, all the while the guy touting can`t even win a decent level if his life depended on it.

You don't have to participate in every thread though. If you see a thread on praetorians being the best, and you're tired of it, then just ignore the thread.

No one has problems with newbs... it`s when they start touting their horn that it gets silly. If he had some decent experience he would have known better... Obviously if it was so over-powered everyone would be all prancing around deity with the pratts.. which already have been nerfed once due to the touters. We don`t see that... so maybe it`s time to ask WHY you don`t see that.

These ZOMG-Overpowered-ZOMG rants do more harm than good...

It's a matter of degree. They're not overpowered to the extent that people have to say, "Oh there's Rome... might as well reload," but that doesn't mean nerfing them wouldn't help balance the game. A unique unit that makes it unnecessary to build other melee units is a bit overpowered. A 7 strength praetorian with or without +10% city attack would be more reasonable. Then you might actually want to build shock axes and train formation spears instead of spamming praetorians.

 

[zunarb7]

I asked a legit and honest question, if you know the answere please share.

I am getting tired and tired of seeing the same old history repeat. Someone comes on here, and ends up screaming FOUL... ZOMG.. OVERPOWERED.... and then we end up with a stir again in the community and another silly debate on what UU needs to be nerfed, all the while the guy touting can`t even win a decent level if his life depended on it.

No one has problems with newbs... it`s when they start touting their horn that it gets silly. If he had some decent experience he would have known better... Obviously if it was so over-powered everyone would be all prancing around deity with the pratts.. which already have been nerfed once due to the touters. We don`t see that... so maybe it`s time to ask WHY you don`t see that.

These ZOMG-Overpowered-ZOMG rants do more harm than good...

It doesn't that they think it does, means they aren't very good at the game as you say noob factor one captain, perhaps you should offer them a one on one with the Egyptians or any other sooner rapefest civ? There are no safe civs, no civs that give you an advantage and no civ that can't be beaten by cunning and experience, either in the one on one game, the team game or just against the hapless computer, bless him.

 

[zunarb7]

Of course people use them on high difficulties - in conjunction with other units. Mainly catapults which, when you have them, make the base strength of the swordsman type unit way less important since the siege units do your heavy lifting for getting cities ready to be taken. This arrangement is why Praets don't shine, and don't do anything special on deity - because, take away their pre-cat rushing ability and all they are is a stronger unit where a stronger unit isn't needed.

Good point. Why are they so special when they take a while to get off the ground and anyone with any sense can nullify them?

As for Levgre, same deal... Why are Praets *so* wonderful if all they really do is slightly bolster an already effective strategy in medieval war? Swordsmen, which are cheaper and have an equivalent 6.6 str attacking a city get the job done when paired with cats.

Also a good point, they are a rush civ, you either use them quickly or you lose out to either a good pillage team or a better set of units and larger set of units. If your particularly useless it could even be a large amount of horsemen.

Iron more common than horses... Maybe - but it's much cheaper to see if you have horses than iron. As in, if I decide, on Immortal or Deity that I'm going to Praet Rush or something, I have to commit myself to relatively a lot of teching that may not help me out in that absolutely game-critical early game... Unless you're inundated with jungle OR want swordsmen fast, you don't need iron working right off the bat generally. On the other hand, the wheel and animal husbandry are two basic low level techs that help you establish your early empire. Going for them early is very rarely a waste - it's something you were going to do anyways.

Precisely going for them early unless you pop a tech or two on the tech trail means that anyone with any sense can just get bronze or horses and rape you, they are only good if you are a noob who doesn't quite get the game.

I stand by my position... Praets are a cumbersome unit, and Deity - heck, even Immortal - pretty much strips them of their sure-thing pre-cat rush ability. That being the case, their `power game`becomes being a slightly more powerful backbone to an army makeup that works well without them. They`re nice, but they're not by any means game breaking.

In the hands of a good player they are superb, but anyone with any sense will rape the hell out of them in the early game, be it against the comp or against players, they have a massive target on their heads that anyone with any sense will swarm all over if they are close.

Me personally I've beaten people that had bronze when I had neither bronze, horse or iron, it just depends how nubious they are, and how lucky you get.

I can see how they might help against the computer, which let's face it is no smarter than my sideboard, but against real players, dream on.

 

[mechaerik]

Mainly catapults which, when you have them, make the base strength of the swordsman type unit way less important since the siege units do your heavy lifting for getting cities ready to be taken. This arrangement is why Praets don't shine, and don't do anything special on deity - because, take away their pre-cat rushing ability and all they are is a stronger unit where a stronger unit isn't needed.

With praets, you'll need less siege to get the same effect. Which means you can build more praets.

Besides, a stronger unit is always needed.

 

[zunarb7]

With praets, you'll need less siege to get the same effect. Which means you can build more praets.

Besides, a stronger unit is always needed.

Indeed this is an against the computer thing, and it works, because the computer has less sense than a zombie with no head. They are an early team that if you can capitalise on will do well, but as high as monarch and you better be careful. Their civics aren't even that useful in later ages compared to the other civics, of course you can always just have any, or make the computer play civics that you will do well against but such is the game. Me I don't rate them any higher than any other civ, except in the early rush game, but then there are several other rush civs that can do just as well, and that in the right hands can rape Rome.

 

[Earthling]

Praets are overpowered... but maybe I'm just sick of arguing against Protoss players all the time.

Spoiler :

For those of you who don't know, I think this is almost an axiom of any game with a powerful team/civ/whatever. The ongoing development of Starcraft II of course is a great highlight, so here's the basic point:
Protoss are generally the easiest to play and have some of the most powerful units - they probably come out strongest at most people's level of play. Naturally, many fans want to preserve these same factors in the new game. So, to translate some statements:

-"I don't think x should be changed, it would weaken strategy y" => "I want the Protoss to be insanely powerful and able to beat the other races when hardly even trying."

-"x is a nerf - it wasn't even a problem in the first place" =>I want the Protoss to be insanely powerful and able to beat the other races when hardly even trying."

-"I have a great idea for a new unit/feature x. It should fit right in!" =>I want the Protoss to be insanely powerful and able to beat the other races when hardly even trying."

...

As far as the rest of this argument, I call myself a deity player and would take any challenges as to that - I think I know enough about the game (and of course I think most posters here do too, I'm not trying to criticize you like some people are). Praets are overpowered and could stand to be weakened (in fact, that's why their cost was increased - they used to cost the same as regular swords. And as has been pointed out changes/nerfs to other units or civs have happened all the time, like curassiers and nerfed cossacks, so it's not something new.). Saying they can be countered by one unit on one civ, even if that's true, does not mean that they aren't imbalanced against everyone else. Praets undoubtedly dominate the AI (maybe not so much as Quechuas) but even against humans they are a huge edge, because they are both strong attackers and nearly impossible to beat on defensive terrain. Saying you could beat a stupid human with an optimal defense is not a counterargument - An optimal attacker will find that Praets still give an advantage in pillaging and defense in a human vs. human matchup. As many others before me have suggested I'd like to see Praets at 7 + restored sword city attack bonus.

Finally, in response to a particular argument by obsolete - I'd say that Praet's in fact do make Deity games easier than for many other civs. There are a few strategies, of course, developed specifically to exploit the AI, like Quechua rushing or regening the map as an industrious civ until you get marble/stone. But especially in comparison to all these other civs whose UU's are comparable to the Praet, I don't see how anyone could argue that Rome is not much superior. On a large, random (leaders + start), continents map if you have a chance of winning in the first place Praets will do far more than Jaguars, Dogs, Gaelics, Numidian horses, Hwachas, Cho-ko-nu, Immortals, or almost any other early UU.

Overall, you Joe Probes are defeating your own argument with the simple fact that just to beat Praets you have to have massive production/tech bonuses (AI) or get a bunch of civs together to gang up on Rome (multiplayer). I don't think anyone would say Rome would become underpowered if Praets had one less strength (hammer cost could also be reduced then).


Edit: of course there is one thing that is still annoying, looking at some recent posts, and I know it has been commented on before, but I still have to point it out just for people to know:

Swords are not 6.6 against cities. Praets with CR are not 10, or 12, or whatever against cities. These bonuses are applied against the defender. It's funny, though, that in this case Praets often come out even better - say an archer has 100% bonus - then the sword is 6 vs. 5.7, While the Praet is 8 vs. 6. Praets actually benefit a lot from combat promos anyway since that is applied to their own strength (and hence people saying they can beat CR praets with their axes or whatever are again making the fallacy of just assuming their opponent is bad - that doesn't mean Praets aren't imbalanced).

 

[Levgre]

"As for Levgre, same deal... Why are Praets *so* wonderful if all they really do is slightly bolster an already effective strategy in medieval war? Swordsmen, which are cheaper and have an equivalent 6.6 str attacking a city get the job done when paired with cats."

They don't "slightly bolster". You can start building them in the ancient era so your assault units are ready when you get siege, and they are also 25% cheaper than macemen, and they make so you can completely avoid a certain path on the tech tree (possibly making up for all economic losses, and then some, for having had researched IW).

I don't know what you mean by "equivalent". Swordsmen with city raider has 8.1, with city raider II it has 9.6. Praet with city raider has 10, with city raider 2 it has 12. And your stack is also much less vulnerable. Since you need to mix axes in with your swords usually, that reduces the average city raider value of your units to maybe 7-7.5. With Romans you can just use praets, so the average stays at near 10.

But yes, the very early rush is often the most powerful thing in the game, so on deity where teching is so difficult, in those isolated cases where economy becomes primary for any war, chariot UUs are often better, also because those civs have better economy traits. Although if you have gold in your cap you can still do the praet rush.



Also if you look at a head-to-head matchup in MP, the Roman player will completely dominate the chariot player UU advantage wise, as long as they get copper/iron for spear defense until they get the praets(as goes for all other civs... metal you are okay, no metal you are likely screwed). This is especially prevalent in multiplayer team games, where there is a near guarantee to get iron sometimes, with multiple players able to trade to the romans. The Praets have no real weakness once they begin to be built.

 

[mechaerik]

Praets undoubtedly dominate the AI (maybe not so much as Quechuas) but even against humans they are a huge edge, because they are both strong attackers and nearly impossible to beat on defensive terrain. Saying you could beat a stupid human with an optimal defense is not a counterargument - An optimal attacker will find that Praets still give an advantage in pillaging and defense in a human vs. human matchup. As many others before me have suggested I'd like to see Praets at 7 + restored sword city attack bonus.

Praets actually benefit a lot from combat promos anyway since that is applied to their own strength (and hence people saying they can beat CR praets with their axes or whatever are again making the fallacy of just assuming their opponent is bad - that doesn't mean Praets aren't imbalanced).

Shock axes devour praets when defending: most humans can figure that out and spam shock axes when they see Roman Praet rushes, that's why there aren't many rome MP players, so Rome doesn't grant significant bonii against other humans. Not saying Praets are balanced, but just pointing something out.

Praet= 8
Shock Axe= 5.5 + 75% vs. melee

 

[Levgre]

Shock axes devour praets when defending: most humans can figure that out and spam shock axes when they see Roman Praet rushes, that's why there aren't many rome MP players, so Rome doesn't grant significant bonii against other humans. Not saying Praets are balanced, but just pointing something out.

Praet= 8
Shock Axe= 5.5 + 75% vs. melee

Praet versus a shock axe at 4.5(1 collatoral hit) has a 65% edge, and then you use some horse archers or elephants for stack defense. And if you spam Axemen and they do get any of that cavalry, your army is in poor shape. Better hope you kill the Romans quick or get elephants, otherwise the Aggressive player becomes the weaker war one.

And that is on flat land, so once again the shock axes can't take out the praets at over 50 if they get any defense bonus.

 

[Earthling]

Shock axes devour praets when defending: most humans can figure that out and spam shock axes when they see Roman Praet rushes, that's why there aren't many rome MP players, so Rome doesn't grant significant bonii against other humans. Not saying Praets are balanced, but just pointing something out.

Praet= 8
Shock Axe= 5.5 + 75% vs. melee

Naturally you'd have to put up a comparison against a 4-pool to make your case...

Spoiler :

(actually I realize this may be coming off as really annoying but for someone who gets it I think it's hilarious)

You do realize, though, mechaerik that your case is a pretty bad setup. First of all, at the very least, the praet should have combat I vs. shock (barracks for both sides). Also, not nearly all leaders are aggressive - so for any non-aggressive leader you might as well consider shock axes vs. shock praets. In any case if you have to be an aggressive civ just to have even odds against Rome that isn't a good case for them not being overpowered.

 

[Molybdeus]

Well, here's my reasoning. Iron working, and the expensive Praets, are a huge investment in tech and hammers for a monstrous, slow moving unit that, if you don't get iron, is pretty much going to result in a *huge* and possibly unrecoverable setback on higher difficulties. {...}

Contrast this to the War Chariot or Immortal. These are cheap, low tech, fast units. Even on Immortal I find I can safely and relatively easily invest the time and resources required to gettings their pre-requisite techs and still be able to change tracks if I don't get horses, if I find Shaka, or something like that.

You are preaching to the choir here, but this is a chariot vs swordsman issue. Vanilla chariots are also cheap, low-tech and fast. My point was that the chariot UU's let you take out 2-3 civs while you can take out 1-2 with normal chariots. Both will win the game for you. On the other hand Praetorians can take out civs with a tech lead that you would not be able to conquer efficiently with normal swordsmen.

 

[zunarb7]

God can anyone hear me? You people are just talking over me, let's face it I think you are all noobalicious. No offence but if you genuinely believe praets are special or overpowered then you haven't got a clue. Nuf said.

 

[Levgre]

God can anyone hear me? You people are just talking over me, let's face it I think you are all noobalicious. No offence but if you genuinely believe praets are special or overpowered then you haven't got a clue. Nuf said.

Pick any civ and I will beat you more often than not with the Romans. Of course many other things come into play (most especially which resources are available, if you are Egypt and we both only have horses obviously you have a big edge). But I'd say other things equal against any civ, me with Rome I'd win 65%-70% of the time.

 

[zunarb7]

Pick any civ and I will beat you more often than not with the Romans. Of course many other things come into play (most especially which resources are available, if you are Egypt and we both only have horses obviously you have a big edge). But I'd say other things equal against any civ, me with Rome I'd win 65%-70% of the time.

Indeed, I said that 3 posts ago, go Egypt on Romans and you'll rape the hell out of them with horses, hell with bronze if you're not a moron you can take them out. Romans are ok in teams, but on their own any noob can take them out. Against the comp of course any moron who doesn't drool into a cup day by day can beat them. If you use them in single player, you better know what you are doing because unless you aren't doing leaders with random civics, you'll get overpowered by better early on civics.

And by the way pick any civ and anyone who isn't a moron will beat you, let's face it they have the edge because you're rushing to iron and they can swarm all over you before you even get that far. If they have any sense they'll pick a civ that is only one step away from bronze or near horse.

 

[mechaerik]

After testing, i have come to the conclusion that Praets are grossly overpowered check out these stats:

And these odds! Attacking a Shock + C1 axe in a fort on a forested hill across a river!

Praets are insanely overpowered and MUST be nerfed!

 

[Earthling]

To Levgre: Honestly the only other person I've seen here who would stand a chance in a challenge would be obsolete and I don't think is fair for us to pick on him... zunarb, for instance, doesn't even know the difference between a leader trait and a civic. (indeed, doesn't seem to even understand that the map might not have copper or horses every time- "one step away" - do you only play Earth 18 civ?)

As for these other comparisons, you're not making a good argument by saying that one or two civs, under the right circumstances, can take the Romans out first. That doesn't do anything for all of the rest who stand almost no chance against a praet rush every time. In single player you could theoretically argue that the Romans are meant to be able to conquer their neighbors but fall behind economically. However, this is a very, very unbalanced sense of gameplay -it screws over MP where the focus isn't on the just the one "human" and to some might even sound unfair anyway. The real test you guys should be looking at is something like the Romans vs. the Russians, or the English, or the Americans. Any of these civs could hold off Egypt or Zulu or Aztecs or Mali whomever, except I think they are much weaker against Rome. If one player choosing the Romans forces everyone else to have to choose an aggressive civ or one of a couple more with a good early UU, it certainly takes a lot out of the game.

 

[Molybdeus]

God can anyone hear me? You people are just talking over me, let's face it I think you are all noobalicious. No offence but if you genuinely believe praets are special or overpowered then you haven't got a clue. Nuf said.

While it's true that you can counter Praetorians, you can do the same thing with Quechuas. While it's true that you can hit Mehmed before he gets Janissaries online, that doesn't mean Janissaries aren't really, really good. No one here has said that the Romans are unbeatable, only that the Praetorian is an extremely powerful unit.

While I doubt they are the best unique unit -Quechuas hold that title- the argument that they aren't powerful on the higher difficulty levels seems incorrect to me. I don't play deity, but they are still very impressive on immortal.

 

[zunarb7]

To Levgre: Honestly the only other person I've seen here who would stand a chance in a challenge would be obsolete and I don't think is fair for us to pick on him... zunarb, for instance, doesn't even know the difference between a leader trait and a civic. (indeed, doesn't seem to even understand that the map might not have copper or horses every time- "one step away" - do you only play Earth 18 civ?)

As for these other comparisons, you're not making a good argument by saying that one or two civs, under the right circumstances, can take the Romans out first. That doesn't do anything for all of the rest who stand almost no chance against a praet rush every time. In single player you could theoretically argue that the Romans are meant to be able to conquer their neighbors but fall behind economically. However, this is a very, very unbalanced sense of gameplay -it screws over MP where the focus isn't on the just the one "human" and to some might even sound unfair anyway. The real test you guys should be looking at is something like the Romans vs. the Russians, or the English, or the Americans. Any of these civs could hold off Egypt or Zulu or Aztecs or Mali whomever, except I think they are much weaker against Rome. If one player choosing the Romans forces everyone else to have to choose an aggressive civ or one of a couple more with a good early UU, it certainly takes a lot out of the game.

Oh you are kidding right? I never said anything like that, but I could beat Rome any time any place. Yooou.... genuinely have to be friggin kidding me? As I said without resources I could do Rome if the ides of march were there, you just have to know they are there.

Come one don't make up stuff about me, you have no idea.

I genuinely must consider you don't play against people who are any good because you are talking Moderator Action: snip , and no offence meant by that, but are you in the same league as anyone who is actually competent?

I've seen Rome raped to many times in a PvP environment, by people who know what they are doing, and I can only assume you don't.

Earthling no offence but I can only assume you are a noob?

Moderator Action: Don't flame other posters and don't use profanity
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889