Horse-units too powerful (even with 1.17f)

John Paul Jones · February 14, 2002, 02:52

Compare the Horseman unit (2/1/2) to the Swordsman (3/2/1). Both are available around the same time, cost the same to build, and one-on-one they look fairly balanced. But anyone whos played knows that, en-masse the cavalry units will far out-perform their infantry counterparts - even with their lower attack rating. I've all but given up fielding infantry against my enemies.

While it remains to be seen how often horse units will fail their die-roll when retreating, I think the game could have been better-balanced by removing that unit's ability to retreat when attacking (or maybe just when attacking cities)
It would do more to encourage the use of combined arms, as opposed to just building hordes of near-immortal cavalry.

Just a thought.

Dis · February 14, 2002, 02:55

well we'll see what the % is of retreat. I think 50% retreat ability for Elite units sounds about right. 25% retreat ability for Vets, and maybe 10 % retreat for normal.

notyoueither · February 14, 2002, 03:15

I think the 2 move units are maybe a tad too cheap (in shields).

A mod could easily bump this up by a third (more or less).

But, only experience with the patch will tell, given the superior attack.defence ratings of the slower units in the ancient age.

Salve

Willem · February 14, 2002, 03:33

Quote:

Originally posted by John Paul Jones
Compare the Horseman unit (2/1/2) to the Swordsman (3/2/1). Both are available around the same time, cost the same to build, and one-on-one they look fairly balanced. But anyone whos played knows that, en-masse the cavalry units will far out-perform their infantry counterparts - even with their lower attack rating. I've all but given up fielding infantry against my enemies.

While it remains to be seen how often horse units will fail their die-roll when retreating, I think the game could have been better-balanced by removing that unit's ability to retreat when attacking (or maybe just when attacking cities)
It would do more to encourage the use of combined arms, as opposed to just building hordes of near-immortal cavalry.

Just a thought.

For God's sake's man, you haven't even tried the changes yet. What the hell are you doing complaining already? I don't believe some people!!!

Worthingtons · February 14, 2002, 05:06

dont lose your temper Willem.

Yes, Horse units are quite powerful, but i still very much like my legions (3/3/1) and will build them over horses, The reason is that when I invade my opponents, I like to take my garrisons with me. In my current game with the Romans, I've had just one city taken from me which i captured (didnt have full strength units defending), because as soon as i take it, my Elite Legions are too strong to defeat.

Furthermore, they are better than normal garrisons on border towns, because when the AI foolishly tries to pillage Your legions are strong enough on the attack to destroy them.

Skanky Burns · February 14, 2002, 05:23

Perhaps actually playing with the changes would be a good idea before complaining that they didn't do enough...

Willem is right

Dis · February 14, 2002, 05:30

this thread does have quite an amusement value though.

Harovan · February 14, 2002, 05:48

Yea, I also would like to see it first before I complain. By the way, the Firaxis approach to deal with the "overpowered mounted unit" problem is pretty wise, better than to eliminate the retreatment at all.

It would be great to have the retreatment percentages per experience level editable. But I guess I'm dreaming, and the patch seems already to be a darn good job without this.

Worthingtons · February 14, 2002, 06:14

The amusement for me, is the fact that it was who Willem created a thread about 'ideas for 1.18f'

Skanky Burns · February 14, 2002, 07:12

Ironic, init

Ironikinit · February 14, 2002, 07:56

Damital2hl.

Willem · February 14, 2002, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
The amusement for me, is the fact that it was who Willem created a thread about 'ideas for 1.18f'

Well at least with that, I was trying to be constructive. As I mentioned in a post there, we can all see what's in the patch through the readme file, so it doesn't hurt to get some new ideas floating around that aren't covered yet. And who knows, maybe an idea there will inspire some modder. But to complain about an issue that has been addressed before even trying the changes is ludicrous.

Skanky Burns · February 14, 2002, 18:35

For those interested, Soren answered some questions in this Thread

Highlight involving 2 move units:

Quote:

Mobile units now have to make a die roll to determine if they withdraw. Success is also modified by their experience level.

What exactly are the odds that they will withdraw at the various levels?

Quote:

*Generally speaking, it is 50/50. Experience for the attacker and defender can skew these odds... *

Seems like that will balance fast units compared to slow ones

Pius Popprasch · February 18, 2002, 06:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Seems like that will balance fast units compared to slow ones

Not sure. I think that Archers still aren't worth to build. The problem is the combat system which makes weak attackers move into bad territory.(from hills to valley)

Ironikinit · February 18, 2002, 07:55

I'm quite pleased with the change to the rule so far. I've only played the ancient era with 1.17, but fast units seem to be more balanced. I've started using more swordsmen and catapults. Archers are still too weak, even as a temporary measure.

In terms of realism, they should be quite a bit more expensive than similarly powered infantry units, but realism isn't that big of a concern to me.

=DrJambo= · February 18, 2002, 09:50

ironikinit, i have a good way to boost the use of archers and longbowmen and bring them in-line with the rest...

basically add a 2/0/1 and a 4/0/1 (bombard/range/rate) to archers and longbowmen respectively. This essentially gives them a free bombard with an attack value the same as their normal one everytime they are attacked in a stack...just like artillery.

of couse the Bobylonian bowman would also need this addition

this makes them quite useful for their cost and unfortunate upgrade ability. Plus it makes them useful in attack and defence as they should be!

Willem · February 18, 2002, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I'm quite pleased with the change to the rule so far. I've only played the ancient era with 1.17, but fast units seem to be more balanced. I've started using more swordsmen and catapults. Archers are still too weak, even as a temporary measure.

In terms of realism, they should be quite a bit more expensive than similarly powered infantry units, but realism isn't that big of a concern to me.

Try giving your Archers a bombard strength, range 0. That gives them a free shot at incoming units, and gives them a role as defensive support.

Damn, I should have finished reading the thread. BTW, Dr. Jambo, it doesn't make any difference what the bombard strength is, a free shot will only take off 1 hit point regardless. That's one thing I really hope they change in the next patch, same with ZoC. They're both feeble IMO.

Ironikinit · February 18, 2002, 12:40

I was toying with the idea of making archers 2.2.1 and the bowman unit 3.2.1 ... longbows the same but give the English a longbow UU 5.1.1.

I prob won't do it tho. The bowman would just duplicate the swordsman and I consider the Babylonians to be fine as they are. Their excellent attributes are balanced by the weak UU. I will try out the archer bombard idea sometime.