 |
| |
|
|
ducki
|
|
Hmmm... I've been fairly happy with it when I get it - that's a lot of shields that could go into knights, but 5 attack is pretty strong for the time.
And Crusaders can build forts.
And it's units you don't have to take time to build, so your queue is free to do other stuff.
The reason it's not so scary for the AI to get it is that my "defenses" (and likely yours) are fairly offensive, so they rarely get to actually attack a town and they are no stronger on defense than your average defender of the age.
Any stronger for the human and I think it's too strong - it would give them a higher attack rating than Cavalry in the AU mod and, IIRC, equivalent attack the the Rifleman's defense.
I, personally, think the wonder and the unit are well balanced, considering the timeframe and contemporary units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I'm rather fond of knight wars so I will often work extra hard to get knights, especially if I can get them before my neighbors have pikes.
Aside from ToE, I don't generally pre-build - well, not on purpose - so while the KT might occasionally be mine due to being cascaded into it, it has never felt like the boobie prize that the Great Wall used to be.
Good points about differing playstyles affecting the relative value of the wonder and the units, nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I thought the AI was bad at upgrading?
A Wonder that pops out Guerilla every 5 turns is a little too good IMO (especially the improved version of the Guerilla).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
What I'm saying is that I can see the human player making much better use out of the improved version of the Wonder than the AI, moreso than the stock version.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I thought KT expired at Steam anyway...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konquest02
Then I think the point of the wonder spitting an almost guerilla is not really valid... |
Sure it is: unless you lose all your Crusaders, you're going to have a nice Guerilla force waiting for you at Replaceable Parts (with minor refitting costs).
The point of the Statue of Zeus and Knights Templar is that their units go obsolete if you do not build the Wonders fast enough. They should give you a power boost over a very short time period, then become obsolete. Anyway, that's what they were designed to do.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
They should give you a power boost over a very short time period, then become obsolete. Anyway, that's what they were designed to do. |
That almost sounds like an argument against allowing them to upgrade.
I know that when we were discussing SoZ, someone did a cost-benefit analysis comparing the shields invested in the wonder to the average expected output (converting ACs to shields). Would our discussion here benefit from this sort of information, or is the perceived problem/weakness simply that the units go obsolete, weakening the AI that builds it? If so, does that make a case for giving the ACs an upgrade path, in order to remain consistent?
Since the human can use these wonders as generators or portable shields, does their expiration give the human an unfair advantage in knowing when they are "useless" and being able to speed improvements in very corrupt settlements or expend them by fortressizing strategically/tactically effective spots(Hmmm.... Radar Tower + Fortress + Mountain + Infantry + Arty Stack. Muwahahahahahahaha!)
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Random though they may seem.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
After some more thought, I'm starting to think making the Knights Templar stronger might be more worthwhile after all, but I also thought of a serious problem with lowering the cost as the way to do it.
First, the reason the wonder could probably use some beefing up: timing. If you build four knights, you get most if not all of your units while the AIs are still using pikemen instead of musketmen. If you build the Knights Templar instead (at least without a prebuild), few if any crusaders will appear before the leading AIs start using musketmen. Thus, even though the knights are weaker than crusaders in absolute terms, they are likely to be stronger relative to the opposition they face. Even going after weaker opponents, the knights will have a longer period of relative strength between the time they become available and the time the enemies have musketmen available to even the odds.
Further, for at least some players (including myself on the relatively rare occasions when I engage in knight-era warfare), the appearance of musketmen tends to be a signal to end the knight-era wars and stop fighting until cavalry are available to tilt the advantage back in favor of the attacker. That tends to make crusaders too late to be available for the main knight-era offensives and too slow compared with cavalry to be worth their nominal value of 70 shields in the cavalry era. The time when Crusaders provide their greatest advantage is a time when human players are less likely to be involved in major offensive operations.
Thus, even though it is not hard to have games where the Knights Templar wonder pays for itself on paper, having it pay for itself in practical terms is a lot harder. (That is especially true for human players since we probably tend to time our wars based on the available technologies a bit more carefully than AIs do.) That makes improving the wonder more worthwhile than I've been thinking.
At first glance, lowering the wonder's cost seems like a good way to make it more cost-effective. But the fact that human players are inclined to switch cities from building something else to building a wonder while AIs don't means that human players get a much bigger advantage at a lower cost. A head start of about 100 shields from work on a colosseum, cathedral, or almost-finished marketplace would require that an AI about double a human player's construction pace to win a race for a 200-shield wonder, where the AI would need only a fifty percent advantage to win a race to a 300-shield wonder. Thus, at 200 shields, human players could get the Knights Templar relatively easy by finding a mid-production city that's almost finished work on something else and switching it, while at 300, getting the Knights Templar without distracting a high-production city from a more important wonder is far more difficult (especially on Emperor and higher). Making it easier for human players to beat AIs to the Knights Templar would not help the AIs, especially with the Knights Templar providing a bigger advantage relative to its cost than it does now.
Having the Knights Templar produce a Crusader every four turns instead of every five would keep the "short-term advantage" character of the wonder but make it more clearly worthwhile. Further, to the extent that AIs remain likely to get the Knights Templar in many if not most games because human players are too busy chasing "more important" wonders to make it a priority, the change would often benefit an AI rather than the human player.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
The only counter I can offer to that is that the AU Mod's Cavalry are also 5 attack now, same as the ("free") Crusader, so the argument about timing would carry more weight(with me) for stock Cavalry. Yes, they move slower, no, they don't retreat. That doesn't make them useless, in my opinion.
Do the Crusaders get a bonus hitpoint?(EDIT: They don't.) If not, would that be a change that would make them strong enough? What about amphibious attack? Does history support that? It seems to be fairly accepted that amphibious is more useful to the AI than the human.
I still think the KT and Crusaders are fine, especially with Crusaders having the same attack as AU Cavalry most of an Age(branchwise) early, so I merely made these suggestions in a search for a conservative middle ground. 4-turn Crusaders with the same expiration date seems to add more weight to the back end of the "mobile shields" stage of this wonder as an undesirable side effect that would aid the player more than the AI, I think.
Edit: Stats from the Editor, AU 1.03b, just to put some numbers all in one place.
Crusader: 5-3-1, 70 shields, no resource reqs for KT
Cavalry: 5-3-3, 80 shields, Zone of Control, requires Saltpetre and Horses
Knights Templar: Cost - 30(same as SoZ, GLighthouse, GWall, Oracle, HGardens, half as much as Smith's, Bach's, Leo's, Sun's, Sistine), 2 Culture, Lifespan: Chivalry->Steam
Last edited by ducki on 09-03-2004 at 09:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
The "mobile shields" situation could be dealt with by offsetting an increase in the number of crusaders with a reduction in their nominal shield value. Indeed, reducing their nominal value from seventy to fifty shields would actually make them less valuable as mobile shields than they are now. To the best of my knowledge, there would be no adverse impact to such a reduction except in the eyes of players whose main reason for building the wonder is mobile shields. AIs don't seem to disband units for shields; the crusader's cost is irrelevant in building it; and the unit doesn't upgrade so upgrades would not be affected.
I'm not trying to say that crusaders are useless in the age of cavalry, but are eight crusaders as valuable as seven cavalry? Is a crusader plus thirty gold worth as much as a cavalry? If not, crusaders in the cavalry era are generally worth less (and I would say considerably less) than their nominal cost of 70 shields, and that fact needs to be taken into consideration in determining how easy or difficult it is to get your shields' worth out of the Knights Templar.
If a player fights a war when the best other offensive unit he has is knights, the crusader's nominal cost of 70 shields is justified. But once cavalry show up, even with the AU Mod's reduction in cavalry's offensive punch, I think valuing the crusader at even 60 shields would probably be a bit high. How many people would give up cavalry's movement and retreat advantages to build 60-shield crusaders instead of 80-shield cavalry if the units had to compete head to head for a place on players' build queues? At an estimated shield value of 60, it would take five crusaders for a player who builds the Knights Templar to break even on cost, and six for the wonder to provide an advantage. From that perspective, the wonder could rarely be regarded as providing more than a small advantage and would sometimes cost considerably more than its benefits can repay.
Regarding amphibious attack, I know of nothing in history that would provide even a hint of a justification or rationalization for such a capability. It would also be a much more serious departure from stock rules in terms of the feel of the game, especially if a player doesn't read the mod's readme carefully enough and gets a city nailed by a crusader he didn't even know had the ability. And if units engaging in an amphibious assault get a combat bonus as I've heard they do, human players could take advantage of that to make crusaders more powerful than they currently are, especially in the era when caravels are around and frigates and privateers aren't. (The reason an amphibious assault capability is considered beneficial to AIs is not that AIs are particularly competent at it, but rather that the threat places pressure on human players to invest in and tie up defenders for coastal cities.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2004 02:57
No need, no need... well if nobody really wants the wonder IT IS ABSOLUTLY WRONG and that MUST be fixed/changed. It should not be "the Great Wall (Civ3, PTW)".
|