 |
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
The Sumerian unique unit is a half-price Spearman that replaces both the Warrior and the Spearman, and upgrades to a Pikeman.
Firaxis has recognized that the Enkidu Warrior is overpowered in multiplayer, so they have increased its cost to 15 shields in the MPTournament mod. In a similar way to the old Jaguar Warrior, the Enkidu could be used as a cheap unit for early rushes.
The question is whether an Enkidu Warrior rush against the AI is powerful enough to warrant a change in the AU mod. Building a dozen Enkidus and sending them for pillaging certainly has the potential to cripple the AI, but is this strategy unbalancing enough to justify a change?
Another consideration is that the Enkidu Warrior has only the defense strategy marked for the AI. That means that the AI does not have an offensive unit available at the beginning of the game, so it doesn’t get any bonus offensive units at higher difficulty levels. This is unfair to the Sumerian AI.
For the human player, the upgrade path of the Enkidu means that the Warrior upgrade strategy is not feasible. If you want Swordsmen, you have to build them from scratch.
Perhaps the Sumerian UU would be less awkward (and less powerful) if it replaced only the Spearman, at a higher shield cost:
- Increase cost of Enkidu to 15 shields.
- Allow Sumerians to build regular Warriors.
What do you think? Does the Enkidu need a change? If so, any other ideas?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aqualung71
|
 |
Lord Desolator of the Desolation Row, C3CDG
Oct 2002
time: 12:35
|
|
You're right of course. It would be a bit weird giving a 1/2/1 unit an offensive flag.
The only other alternative I can think of (playing the devil's advocate here, since I think your original suggestion stands up pretty well) is changing Sumeria's starting tech to Warrior Code (replacing say, Bronze Working), allowing them to build offensive Archers and defensive Enkidu. In that case they wouldn't really need to build Warriors for offense - though of course this would mean the Warrior-SWordsman upgrade strategy that many players love is still not possible, but I don't see any reason why all strategies must be available to all civs.
On the other hand, it may be too much of a change for AU purposes, and I'm not sure how it would affect overall balance.
On the cost increase, I tend to think that a cheap cost for defensive units is quite ok. The Enkidu becomes obsolete relatively early as a pure defensive unit, and the cheaper upfront cost just means you have to pay more to upgrade later if you want them to remain effective defensive units.
Another thought - under the current rules, if Sumeria triggers its GA before researching Feudalism, is it left without a defensive unit to build (apart from Swordsmen which have the same defence rating but are an attacking unit)? If so, this seems a little unfair.
Last edited by Aqualung71 on 14-04-2004 at 15:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
I'd have thought that Thrillers' idea of giving the Enkidu the offensive flag for the AI certainly makes sense if it's cost stayed at 10. The Enkidu is the best offensive unit the Sumerians can build to start with and I'd expect them to Enkidu rush reasonably often.
Later on, they would build Enkidus as well as archers and swordsmen more but I doubt it would be that significant. It's a reasonable attacker for it's cost anyway.
I wouldn't imagine that that many offensive Enkidu's would survive to Feudalism and we've already got infantry upgrading to defensive only.
The question is thsn whether the Enkidu would be better at 10 or 15 shields.
Even at 10 shields, I wouldn't prefer a 1/2/1 Enkidu to 15 costing 1/1/2 Jaguars or Chasquis for pillaging or harassing an AI civ. It's too easy to draw off the AI's attackers with one fast unit so there's less chance of others being counterattacked. It's a human's advantage at counterattacking that makes them better than these in MP.
One advantage of the Enkidu is in defending archers, especially the ability of regular Enkidu warriors to defend ahead of veteran archers. But it's still not as good as the bowman for that and that's hardly a killer UU.
The proposed changes aren't bad but I'd prefer to see just the offensive flag mainly because it's more conservative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
No, at least for the moment. In terms of how much more cost-effective in shields the UU is than the unit it replaces, the Enkidu is probably the most powerful UU in the game. Under those conditions, I would want to see test results of how effectively the Sumerian AI uses Enkidus in an offensive role before flagging them offensive in the AU Mod - and thereby potentially making them more potent in AI hands.
There is no cost-effective defense against a "pillaging Enkidu" strategy, especially in the early game. Even weight of numbers cannot possibly offset the fact that Enkidus cost half as much as archers and have a defense value as high the archers' attack value. The defender has to either allow the Enkidu to go about its pillaging (thereby playing havoc with the defender's economy) or engage in combat on highly unfavorable terms.
For Enkidus in human hands, that power is partially offset by two factors, or three on the higher levels. First, we're playing to win the game, not just to beat one particular opponent. Thus, no matter how effective the "pillaging Enkidu" strategy might be against one or two opponents, it is not nearly so obviously the best way to build a prosperous civilization in the long term. But from an AI/game balance/game fun perspective, the Sumerian AI can cause a player to lose without setting itself up to win.
Second, players who view the "pillaging Enkidu" tactic as too overpowering can choose to refrain from using it in order to play a more balanced game. But AI behavior can't be turned on and off that way short of playing with a customized version of the Mod.
And third, on Monarch and higher levels, AIs get bonuses to offset their inferior tactics. Thus, in practice, the cost difference between a pillaging human Enkidu and an AI archer that attacks it is smaller than the nominal costs involved would imply. But with human archers forced to deal with pillaging AI Enkidus, the reverse would be true: the difference in shield costs in practice would be even higher than the nominal cost difference.
Thus, if the Sumerian AI with offensive-flagged Enkidus would stumble into something along the lines of a "pillaging Enkidu" stategy, that could cause serious trouble for human players in spite of the fact that the AI's strategy would not be nearly as concentrated or focused as what human players can come up with. Worse, it would be trouble that has no cost-effective counter-strategy (especially prior to catapults) because of the mathematics involved. That's not the kind of "helping the AI" that I want in the AU Mod.
Therefore, I view the change as something that could be either beneficial or harmful, depending on how the AI reacts to it. That being the case, I don't think the change belongs in the AU Mod until we have some evidence regarding how the AI would use offensive-flagged Enkidus. So, to re-iterate, I vote no at least for the time being.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Madine
|
|
Here is an idea for allowing enkidus to upgrade to swordsmen without depriving the Sumerians of their cheap defensive unit:
Create a duplicate enkidu warrior as follows: Same stats as original, available at Iron working, requires iron, defensive flag only, upgrades to pikeman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
IthacaMike
|
|
Upstate New York
Feb 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Madine
Here is an idea for allowing enkidus to upgrade to swordsmen without depriving the Sumerians of their cheap defensive unit:
Create a duplicate enkidu warrior as follows: Same stats as original, available at Iron working, requires iron, defensive flag only, upgrades to pikeman. |
A cleaner way would be to duplicate the Spearman (and create the Sumerian Spearman) so you can tell at a glance what the unit is and what it will upgrade to.
I like this one.
IthacaMike
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
This is the first time we are being concerned about improving the AI too much in this mod! 
That hints that the Enkidu probably needs to be made more expensive. |
Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that AIs tend to build vastly more defensive units than humans do, and therefore tend to get vastly more advantage out of strong defensive UUs than we do in conventional warfare. For example, Greece is one of the AIs I least like to fight against in the early game because Hoplites are so powerful and cost-effective defensively. But in spite of the danger posed by Hoplites in AI hands, I always dismissed them as almost completely uninteesting as a UU to use myself in normal games. I'm only now starting to reconsider, because it occurs to me that Hoplites have the same kind of "pillage and dare the enemy to attack them" potential that Enkidus do.
So what we have with the Enkidu under the standard rules is a situation in which AIs get vastly more advantage than most humans out of the Enkidu with conventional tactics, while humans can potentially get vastly more value from using them in unconventional tactics. If those two factors are currently in reasonably good balance (and I don't know whether they are or not), changes that significantly increase AI use of Enkidus for pillaging could upset the balance without implying that a cost of 10 for Enkidus in human hands is unbalancing.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Enkidu pillaging can be a very powerful tactic in human hands, but I'm far more skeptical about whether its power is out of proportion to that of other tactics. I don't recall seeing any real-world reports of how players have used the tactic (which may just mean I haven't looked the right places). And without such reports, it's hard for me to form a firm opinion of whether the Enkidu's power at cost 10 is really so far out of line with the power of other UUs - especially the "big guns" like Immortals, Mounted Warriors, and War Chariots - as to require a change.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
I don't recall seeing any real-world reports of how players have used the tactic (which may just mean I haven't looked the right places). |
I think most folks feel that pillaging is counterproductive - they'd rather not have to reroad and remine. Aeson has shown some very effective use of the ultra-early pillage strategy and the old oscillating-war-aka-pruning hints at it, but it seems not many folk do pruning without taking territory.
My own (new) opinion is that (usually) captured territory, especially very early, is highly corrupt, and therefore any mines are unnecessary for some time, therefore I'm more apt to pillage of late, even if I intend to take a town - if pop is high, I'm going to starve and rush workers anyway, so I'll re-improve before it's really needed. If pop is low, I don't really need the improvements. Roads are nice, but not necessary for anything other than connecting lux.
I just realized I'm rambling.
The point is, I think most folks see pillaging as creating future inconvenience for themselves - they'd rather have the enemy be slightly better off in the short term because it means they don't have to manage workers fixing what they just broke.
I could be wrong, but that's how I see it in _most_ discussions where it comes up, which doesn't seem very often.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
In my view, increasing the cost of the Enkidu is justified only if the Enkidu at cost 10 in human hands is more powerful than generally recognized first-tier UUs such as the Mounted Warrior, War Chariot, Immortal, and Rider. If the Enkidu at cost 10 is merely a good UU, even a first-tier one, that is not sufficient to justify a change in cost.
In purely or primarily conventional warfare, the Enkidu does not come even close to being as attractive as the other UUs I listed; at least not with anything resembling the playing styles I normally use. Thus, the only way the Enkidu's power can be out of line with that of generally recognized first-tier UUs is if its pillaging ability provides enough advantage, often enough, for enough players, to make up for its lesser value in conventional warfare. I'm open to the possibility that that might be the case, at least if enough players get used to and good at early-game pillaging tactics. But I'm also highly skeptical, especially since Enkidu pillaging on any significant scale is almost certain to trigger a GA.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I think Sumeria is strong enough as is without introducing the option of upgrading Warriors. The loss of that upgrade path (or, the beginning of it) is the main reason the Enkidu was priced at 10 Shields instead of 15 (and why it replaces Warriors instead of Spearmen). Allowing human players to upgrade their Enkidus to Swordsmen does little to nothing to help the AI.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2004 18:10
|