 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by player1
Actualy, if they would have both versions of Swordsmen, then it would be better to keep old price of 50, since otherwise I doubt that anybody would build basic Swordsmen if price difference is just 10 shields.
|
Yes, but people would upgrade warriors. And that's the point of the UU. It's supposed to make you want to build it instead of other normal units. How often do Egyptians build horsemen, or even swordsmen for that matter?
quote:
10 Warriors plus 400gp makes Persians...
10 Warriors plus 400gp makes Romans...
|
Quite strong, but not invincible. Don't underestimate the power of movement. Many believe that the best UU in the game is the Mounted Warrior, despite having just 3 attack and 1 defense.
Last edited by alexman on 19-02-2003 at 20:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
 |
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
Version 1.14 is OUT!
Comments to changes in v1.14
Explore command removed from Tactical Nukes, since it doesn't make sense.
Observation showed that AI, despite having airlift flag, was unable to airlift Cruise Missiles. So to fix this imbalance I removed airlift flag from Cruise Missiles.
I reduced price of Galic Swordsmen to 40, since original price of 50 was too expensive for a unique unit (Mounted Warrior has just one defense point less and costs 30 shields).
When comparing Keshik and Ansar Warrior, Keshik's benefits looks much weaker. To fix that I decreased cost of Keshik to 50 shields.
In light of recent changes to some unique units, I concluded that price reduction to 60 shields is not enough to make Conquistadors worthy. That's why I now reduced their cost to 50 shields.
Knight to Cavalry upgrade looks pretty cheap considering it's benefits (+50% to offense and movement for just 10-20gp). And its devastating if done early in rennaissance age. To make this a little bit more balanced I increased cost of Cavalry to 90 shields.
Despite higher cost of Cavalry, Cossaks will keep their cost of 80 shields, since their higher defense is not much impressive on its own. Siphai would keep price of 100 shields too, since their cost is already high enough considering their benefits.
Also, after some consideration, I think that Great Wall does not need to give free walls anymore (it already gives defense bonus to walled cities). So I removed that ability.
Also, extended version with improved civilopedia and tech screen can be found here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by player1
I reduced price of Galic Swordsmen to 40, since original price of 50 was too expensive for a unique unit (Mounted Warrior has just one defense point less and costs 30 shields).
|
If you haven't already, take a look at an AU game played with the Celts, who's purpose was mainly to figure out if the Gallic swordsman is too poweful. Most players thought the unit was fine at 50 cost. The reason is the warrior upgrade path, and the fact that the Celts are militaristic, while Iroquois (and Persians) are not.
quote:
When comparing Keshik and Ansar Warrior, Keshik's benefits looks much weaker. To fix that I decreased cost of Keshik to 50 shields.
|
Again, the UU of a militaristic civ doesn't need to be as powerful, as it gets promoted more often. The extra HP and the increased retreat odds balance the weaker UU.
quote:
Knight to Cavalry upgrade looks pretty cheap considering it's benefits (+50% to offense and movement for just 10-20gp). And its devastating if done early in rennaissance age.
|
Reasonable, but on the other hand Military Tradition is optional, and Cavalry doesn't upgrade any more.
quote:
Also, after some consideration, I think that Great Wall does not need to give free walls anymore (it already gives defense bonus to walled cities). So I removed that ability.
|
This might be a concern in MP, but in MP people tend to build wonders later, so the Wonder has a shorter lifespan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
player1
|
|
Belgrade, YU
Sep 2001
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
If you haven't already, take a look at an AU game played with the Celts, who's purpose was mainly to figure out if the Gallic swordsman is too poweful. Most players thought the unit was fine at 50 cost. The reason is the warrior upgrade path, and the fact that the Celts are militaristic, while Iroquois (and Persians) are not. |
Now the million dollar question:
If 50 cost feels almost OK, does it make 40 cost too powerful or not compared to other UUs?
I still don't think so.
(and they still don't upgrade to anything more powerful)
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Again, the UU of a militaristic civ doesn't need to be as powerful, as it gets promoted more often. The extra HP and the increased retreat odds balance the weaker UU. |
Normally, militaristic or not, your main force will consist of Veteran units. And Militarist would have slighty more elite units.
Now, I played with Monglos recently and they really looked lacking.
Now, true better movment on hills and cheaper cost was nice, but I realy feeled inferior while waging war against Chineese, Arabs or Japanese (like I did not have UU at all).
quote:
This might be a concern in MP, but in MP people tend to build wonders later, so the Wonder has a shorter lifespan. |
Actually, many MP strategists advise building this Wonder as good option (since in MP Walls are usually more important) .
+100% defense bonus? Good!
quote:
Reasonable, but on the other hand Military Tradition is optional, and Cavalry doesn't upgrade any more. |
Optional but still pretty powerful.
50% more attack then best defender if done eraly.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2003 03:21
|