salty mud
Deity
What do you think of Pratorians? I myself think they are over-powered but fun. I know the Romans were powerful but organization won them the day. Vote on what you think on Pratorians.
Your opnion on Pratorians
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
paulscudder
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2
I personally think they are great i love to have a nice early war carve out a nice big terrotory with them then become all peace loving once i controll all the resource 
.
but the could be toned down a little
. but the could be toned down a little
The-Hawk
Old Original Geezer
Well, I'm not exactly sure what "overpowered" means. Its hard for me to call anything overpowered or overbalanced at deity or immortal.
Praets clearly are extremely powerful relative to their era. But I don't think this is a bad thing. It give Julius personality. If all the units are leveled out, then there is no point in having UU's at all. Sami's and Cossacks are also powerful in their eras. Praets are tools that are very useful in some situations and not useful in others.
I hope they are not nerfed in a future patch.
Praets clearly are extremely powerful relative to their era. But I don't think this is a bad thing. It give Julius personality. If all the units are leveled out, then there is no point in having UU's at all. Sami's and Cossacks are also powerful in their eras. Praets are tools that are very useful in some situations and not useful in others.
I hope they are not nerfed in a future patch.
SilentDemon
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2006
- Messages
- 150
The-Hawk said:
Agreed, if you look at many of the different UUs they have advantages in the time of which that they come, but thats the point of them being UUs. Although yes you will likely defeat one or two opponents using your UU at the time of which it becomes available, you likely won't be able to use only it to defeat all of your opponents. Praetorians aren't any more overpowered than most UUs. In honesty I believe some UUs such as Chokonu are far more overpowered for the time they become available. At least axemen have a chance against Praetorians, good luck using longbowmen and macemen against chokonu on an offensive
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
I say they're overpowered ... unless you're unfortunate enough not to have any Iron nearby 
deeperthanu
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 27
I think there normal just like any other UU.They become obselete just like every other unit.
Eternalsteelfan
Prince
I think it's a fair representation of how the Romans conquered such a huge empire. This is the same reason I'm for a more powerful Mongolian unit in Warlords, Civs that conquered massive empires should have UUs that are powerful enough to do it in the game.
Xanikk999
History junkie
I would say they are overpowered because they can take ANY ancient unit without major difficulty. They can even take axes.
Axemen str towards melee is: 5*1.5 = 7.50
So a praetorians str is 8 so a pratoerien still has the advantage.
I find this overpowered because theres no counter for them early on.
Axemen str towards melee is: 5*1.5 = 7.50
So a praetorians str is 8 so a pratoerien still has the advantage.
I find this overpowered because theres no counter for them early on.
Cookie Crumbs
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2006
- Messages
- 485
That's before factoring in promotions and defense bonuses.
An axeman with Shock promotion+25% fortify+20% culture bonus+unit ability gives 2.2x5=11, against 9.6 with a Praetorian with City Raider I. This is not even factoring in Walls, or a bigger cultural defense bonus. But, it seems the AI prefers to put Archers in their cities rather than Axemen. Meh. They seem overpowered unless you're playing against people.
An axeman with Shock promotion+25% fortify+20% culture bonus+unit ability gives 2.2x5=11, against 9.6 with a Praetorian with City Raider I. This is not even factoring in Walls, or a bigger cultural defense bonus. But, it seems the AI prefers to put Archers in their cities rather than Axemen. Meh. They seem overpowered unless you're playing against people.
I think they're fairly balanced.
They DO encourage early rushing, but early in the game it's difficult to deal with a massive empire. Too many of my early "prae-rushes" resulted in my falling very, very far behind in the tech race with the nations I couldn't reach before the praes become obsolete.
Now, I make sure to use them to crush 1 (sometimes 2 if they are small) neighbors while rushing for Code of Laws.
If the timing is good, I don't get into an economic death spiral.
They DO encourage early rushing, but early in the game it's difficult to deal with a massive empire. Too many of my early "prae-rushes" resulted in my falling very, very far behind in the tech race with the nations I couldn't reach before the praes become obsolete.
Now, I make sure to use them to crush 1 (sometimes 2 if they are small) neighbors while rushing for Code of Laws.
If the timing is good, I don't get into an economic death spiral.
Raisin Bran
Cereal Killer
fuji said:
always watch out for the guy who has the romans and never says a word in MP games ... they are always the first to attack!
Not overpowered not underpowered .... it all depends on who plays them!
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
They're a little overpowered, perhaps, but not by too much. I think they're balanced by the fact that you have to (a) discover Iron Working, which is a relatively expensive tech to research in the early game, and (b) have Iron available--you may need to found a city far afield or even axe-rush someone to get it.
These two factors can delay you quite a bit. I find if I play as a civ without an early UU (Elizabeth or Catherine are my two other favourites that fall into this category), I'm well into my axeman rush by the time I'd still be just ramping up in a Rome game. (Strangely, in every game I've played as Rome, I've always had Iron appear near my core cities, but I've always had to trade/conquer for Copper.)
I would also contend that Caesar's Expansive/Organized traits make the UU seem even more overpowered. With those traits, Rome is in a better position than just about any other civ to handle the large, early empire that comes from the Praet-rush. The Mongols also have a very powerful early UU, but no one complains about it being over-powered--I think mainly because neither Genghis nor Kublai have the Organized trait. Aggressive might help you win an empire, but will NOT help you manage it. Though as Duuk said, CoL and courthouses are essential.
These two factors can delay you quite a bit. I find if I play as a civ without an early UU (Elizabeth or Catherine are my two other favourites that fall into this category), I'm well into my axeman rush by the time I'd still be just ramping up in a Rome game. (Strangely, in every game I've played as Rome, I've always had Iron appear near my core cities, but I've always had to trade/conquer for Copper.)
I would also contend that Caesar's Expansive/Organized traits make the UU seem even more overpowered. With those traits, Rome is in a better position than just about any other civ to handle the large, early empire that comes from the Praet-rush. The Mongols also have a very powerful early UU, but no one complains about it being over-powered--I think mainly because neither Genghis nor Kublai have the Organized trait. Aggressive might help you win an empire, but will NOT help you manage it. Though as Duuk said, CoL and courthouses are essential.
ulsterman88
4-2 Rangers rule supreme!
i think praetorians are fine in terms of combat strength, however they should defenitely be given the ability to build roads and fortresses like in C3C rise of rome scenario. Good perhaps give it a city raiders bonus of +10% as they were quite adept at taking fortified cities
salty mud
Deity
ulsterman88 said:
Good idea!
I should of thought of that! 
Similar threads
