• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Why oh why have they nerfed redcoats?

MrG

Warlord
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
139
They weren't THAT sick were they?

Even if they were, why cut the strength, why not take away some of the bonuses instead like the +25% against gunpowder units.

IMO Praetorians are far more over powered than redcoats.

Honestly reducing them too 14 str and +25% against gunpowder units, rubbish, they should at least have more strength that the rifleman

grrrrrr

Right hissy fit over, toys are back in tha pram, I'm off to get battered again.
 
I liked redcoats a lot but they were a little overpowered. A game like this needs to be a careful mix of units and counter-units. The redcoat, during the rifleman era, had no counter-unit.

Prats, while powerful, can still be stopped by shock-promoted axeman. It's just that the human player has the perception that prats are overpowered, because we use them against AI archers.
 
I liked redcoats a lot but they were a little overpowered. A game like this needs to be a careful mix of units and counter-units. The redcoat, during the rifleman era, had no counter-unit.

Prats, while powerful, can still be stopped by shock-promoted axeman. It's just that the human player has the perception that prats are overpowered, because we use them against AI archers.

The Redcoats had no counter, much like the Praetorian--they were simply awesome even when attacked by grenadiers. Much like the situation with shock-promoted axemen attacking shock-promoted Praetorians (you still only had a ~40% chance at best of winning).
 
The Redcoats had no counter, much like the Praetorian--they were simply awesome even when attacked by grenadiers. Much like the situation with shock-promoted axemen attacking shock-promoted Praetorians (you still only had a ~40% chance at best of winning).

I guess we should be thankful that the Romand don't have an aggressive leader. Shock promoted Praetorians right out the barracks door would be flippin' crazy.
 
To be fair to the praets, they were more expensive than axemen, so a pure spam of axemen with equal promotions would be roughly equal to preat spam. They ARE overpowered, though, just as Redcoats were
 
Personally, I think Firaxis has gotten carried away with pulling the teeth from UU's. The Prat's are about the only one left that is anywhere close to being what I want in a UU.

Basically, a UU should be designed so that if I'm next to a civ, when three things should be true...

1) The AI WILL build the UU in larger numbers than if it were a 'normal' unit.
2) The AI WILL almost always go to war to take advantage of the UU.
3) If I'm the one who it goes to war with, I need to do something significantly different to respond to the UU compared to if it were a normal unit.

Firaxis seems to be making #3 always 'false'.

I want those 3 to be true because it will generate more interesting differences from game to game based on whom you're next. Without those 3 being true, from a military perspective, the UU your neighbor has is pretty much irrelevant.

Let me give you an example of what I DON'T want it to be.

I start next to the Egyptians. I know that they may be building War Chariots. Do I build lots more Spearmen than I would against a civ with regular Chariots? No. If I can't build Spearmen, do I radically alter my research path to generate an unusual defense against them? No, my own Chariots can do a reasonable job of counter attack, and the Archers in the cities can put up better than a 1:1 defense.

So basically, the Egyptian UU isn't powerful enough to make me play the game any differently than if the Egyptians had no UU whatsoever.

Now here's an example of a UU that IS properly setup. The Roman's Prat's.

If I start next to the Romans, and find that the first 2 of the 3 things on my list were true, than the Prat is powerful enough to cause me to alter my play. I WILL build significantly more Axemen than I would if it were just normal Swordsman next door. If I can't build Axemen, I'll do something really radical elsewhere. Perhaps I'll trade my only Horse and only Wheat (or whatever) resource to a civ in exchange for Copper so that I CAN build my Prat defense. Or perhaps I'll adjust my research path to get Fuedalism much earlier than I normally would, and run Vassalage more than normal to build Shock promoted Longbowmen as my Prat defense. Or perhaps I'll do some diplomatic trick that handicaps me (like adopting the Roman State Religion even though I only have one city with it in my civ and all of my cities have the religion I founded), but helps insure that I'm not the target of the Prats.

In any case, the point is that if I think I'll have to fight Prat's, I WILL do things differently than if I were fighting other civs.

All UU's should be that way.

And to tie this back to the current thread...

Redcoats in Vanilla Civ were about right -- i.e. you needed to do things differently if Redcoats were next door compared to regular Riflemen. But they've been de-fanged to the point were you don't have to do anything special. Maybe build one or two more Grenadiers, but that's about it.
 
Although some have hidden qualitys.... Doouble speed Jags and Gallics are awsome! Redcoats' Hidden quality is that when you get them only 5 xp(4 for church) You would have a quadsi-awsome gernadier, think if it as a overpowered gernadier that needed 4-5 xps to work.
 
I guess we should be thankful that the Romand don't have an aggressive leader. Shock promoted Praetorians right out the barracks door would be flippin' crazy.

about that... why isn't Julius aggressive?
 
Personally, I think Firaxis has gotten carried away with pulling the teeth from UU's. The Prat's are about the only one left that is anywhere close to being what I want in a UU.

Basically, a UU should be designed so that if I'm next to a civ, when three things should be true...

1) The AI WILL build the UU in larger numbers than if it were a 'normal' unit.
2) The AI WILL almost always go to war to take advantage of the UU.
3) If I'm the one who it goes to war with, I need to do something significantly different to respond to the UU compared to if it were a normal unit.

Firaxis seems to be making #3 always 'false'.

I want those 3 to be true because it will generate more interesting differences from game to game based on whom you're next. Without those 3 being true, from a military perspective, the UU your neighbor has is pretty much irrelevant.

Let me give you an example of what I DON'T want it to be.

I start next to the Egyptians. I know that they may be building War Chariots. Do I build lots more Spearmen than I would against a civ with regular Chariots? No. If I can't build Spearmen, do I radically alter my research path to generate an unusual defense against them? No, my own Chariots can do a reasonable job of counter attack, and the Archers in the cities can put up better than a 1:1 defense.

So basically, the Egyptian UU isn't powerful enough to make me play the game any differently than if the Egyptians had no UU whatsoever.

Now here's an example of a UU that IS properly setup. The Roman's Prat's.

If I start next to the Romans, and find that the first 2 of the 3 things on my list were true, than the Prat is powerful enough to cause me to alter my play. I WILL build significantly more Axemen than I would if it were just normal Swordsman next door. If I can't build Axemen, I'll do something really radical elsewhere. Perhaps I'll trade my only Horse and only Wheat (or whatever) resource to a civ in exchange for Copper so that I CAN build my Prat defense. Or perhaps I'll adjust my research path to get Fuedalism much earlier than I normally would, and run Vassalage more than normal to build Shock promoted Longbowmen as my Prat defense. Or perhaps I'll do some diplomatic trick that handicaps me (like adopting the Roman State Religion even though I only have one city with it in my civ and all of my cities have the religion I founded), but helps insure that I'm not the target of the Prats.

In any case, the point is that if I think I'll have to fight Prat's, I WILL do things differently than if I were fighting other civs.

All UU's should be that way.

And to tie this back to the current thread...

Redcoats in Vanilla Civ were about right -- i.e. you needed to do things differently if Redcoats were next door compared to regular Riflemen. But they've been de-fanged to the point were you don't have to do anything special. Maybe build one or two more Grenadiers, but that's about it.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Carthaginian UU. Instead of countering them with spears, which is much more ineffective due to the +50% against melee, you have to use cavalry to beat them. Completely different unit.
 
Cossasks were another unit pre-Warlords that were overpowerd.

I don't know how Praetorians haven't been nerfed yet, but Redcoats were definately in need of it.

Units that have no counter in thier age, are too powerful, plain and simple.
 
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Carthaginian UU. Instead of countering them with spears, which is much more ineffective due to the +50% against melee, you have to use cavalry to beat them. Completely different unit.

Almost all of them are well set up. I think his rant is out of place.
If you're near Huayna Capac you shouldn't build archers to defend your cities, warriors would work better ! In the same way you can't use melee units to defend from Sitting Bull. The Carthaginian unit btw is a very good one. With just one promotion you get immunity to first strikes and 50% retreat chances. A stack of these can be very mean, and if you don't have horses it's hard to counter them. Horse Archers are also better suited vs Babylonian Bowmen than the traditional melee units you would use.
There are also UUs that aren't so unique in their traits, but that's an overall balance feat I think. Anyways saying that Praetorians are the only proper UU is really exaggerated.
The only thing I can agree on is that the AI is not programmed to take advantage of its UUs.
 
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Carthaginian UU. Instead of countering them with spears, which is much more ineffective due to the +50% against melee, you have to use cavalry to beat them. Completely different unit.

Well, Spearmen still counter them pretty well. Out of the box, it's 4.00 vs 3.33 for Spearmen attacking Numidian Cavalry. Horse Archer against Numidian Cavalry is 6 vs. 5. Both of those are a 1.2 ratio, so they both work equally well, and the Spearmen are cheaper.

I'd build a few extra Spearmen if facing Carthage, but I wouldn't have to completely rethink my game play.

Now if the Numidian's were like they were, but with 75-100% against melee, then one would have to find horses and get Horse Archers (or War Elephants) to counter them. Or one would have to load up on a whole bunch of Spearmen. That would be powerful enough to force a change in gameplay.
 
Top Bottom