Posts: 2,521
Threads: 26
Joined: Oct 2010
Selrahc Wrote:Javelin Throwers do get a first strike chance.
Awesome.
The idea behind them is apparently offensive archer units.
I find them particularly pointless for the Doviello though, who don't even need to build training yards or archery ranges. Make them 5/3, give them ability to use bronze and they suddenly start to fit the role. And become a really interesting alternative to axes at the same time, even considering the high cost.
Selrahc Wrote:Something we need to discuss is the removal of the bronze promotion from warriors. That would be a fairly hefty balance change. Is it a necessary one though? Bronze warriors are kind of ridiculously cost effective units that overshadow axes and archers for defence in most cases. On the flip side, there are some really powerful early rush strategies and bronze warriors might be the best possible hope for a player to hold out. Hell yes. There's no need for a bronze warrior as a rush counter, because there's another option that noone really uses. Palisade+City Walls. We have, what, 5 PBEMs running? Ever seen a player build walls in them? I haven't. And the logic should be quite simple - you worry about rush, you fortify the cities. Or take a gamble and build other stuff instead. Without the "get out of jail free card" the bronze warrior currently constitutes.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
Pallisade and walls against a rush surely just means getting pillaged and choked
Posts: 2,521
Threads: 26
Joined: Oct 2010
And bronze warrior doesn't  ? Since when?
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
Bronze warriors can be turned round and used for attack (even if needing 2v1 odds). As yet no civ has the 'animate wall' spell so those hammers can never go on the march
Posts: 2,521
Threads: 26
Joined: Oct 2010
By the time you can gather enough warriors to safely attack something in the type of PoW or Warren fuelled rush you are usually already pillaged and under heavy choke. Bronze weapons or no.
Also look at it from this perspective - ability to field bronze warrior = ability to field bronze axes. If you don't trust walls, build an early training yard and churn axes/swords. It is possible, just economicaly suboptimal with bronze warrior present.
The bottom line is, bronze warrior creates more balance problems and tech tree nonsenses than it's worth in working as an early barb/rush defence.
Posts: 748
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2010
Yes, I agree with Jkaen. You need to be able to counter-attack to defend against a rush, otherwise you still end up toast in the long run. Being able to defend a city does not create an overall defense against attack.
Posts: 748
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2010
And crossposted with Mist. Economically suboptimal means ineffective, when it comes to axes. And I don't agree that the benefits for barb defense aren't important. Barbs and barb animals are extremely strong up until you get copper, if you had to wait even longer it would slow down the early game even more.
Maybe my problem is that I don't understand what's wrong with bronze warriors in the first place. Sure, in some ways spamming them is more hammer efficient than building better units, but only in a direct stack-to-stack clash. In general play I think there's a distinct benefit to having a stronger unit, even with a lot less of them. Plus it's better value for upkeep. So once I have better units available I don't generally find myself spamming warriors.
Posts: 872
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Irgy Wrote:And crossposted with Mist. Economically suboptimal means ineffective, when it comes to axes. And I don't agree that the benefits for barb defense aren't important. Barbs and barb animals are extremely strong up until you get copper, if you had to wait even longer it would slow down the early game even more.
Maybe my problem is that I don't understand what's wrong with bronze warriors in the first place. Sure, in some ways spamming them is more hammer efficient than building better units, but only in a direct stack-to-stack clash. In general play I think there's a distinct benefit to having a stronger unit, even with a lot less of them. Plus it's better value for upkeep. So once I have better units available I don't generally find myself spamming warriors.
I disagree. Here's why:
As Mist already pointed out, disallowing Bronze warriors doesn't meaningfully delay Bronze weapons as such. Bronze weapons are still unlocked at Bronzeworking. All it requires is building a Training Yard and churning out Axemen. For any reasonably situated capital running God-King (And why would you run anything else early game?) this should be no problem. God forbid you actually have to invest hammers into early game defense!
At the same time, it opens up a lot of other military options. Depending on geography, civilization, and taste, you could pursue the cheap Horsebackriding tech for mobile Horsemen defenders and the Mobility promotion; the more expensive Hunting for Hunters, Hawks, and early animal captures; or Archery for unbeatable city defenders, better forest chops, and early lumbermills. None of these units - Axemen, Horsemen, Hunters, and Archers - are economically suboptimal in themselves. They're simply suboptimal when compared to bronze warriors, which can be built from the start of the game, from any city, for less than half the price. It's not really about value for upkeep: bronze warriors are flat out superior, one-on-one to everything but archers on defense and bronze axemen on offense. And that slight difference doesn't compare to the massive early hammer savings from building warriors - which means the ONE right answer for early game defense runs through Crafting-->Mining-->Bronzeworking.
What about early rush strategies? Well, the nerf to warriors cuts both ways: the attacker can't bring bronze warriors, either. And if another player manages to build a stack of Axemen/Horsemen/whatever (Warren-fueled or not) and march them all the way to your cities, you've had plenty of time to build an army of your own. There's no excuse to be running around with warriors. What's left? Priests of Winter and Pyre Zombies. The problem with these rush strategies runs deeper than bronze warriors. A dedicated PoW rush, combined with Stasis, can hit players before they even reach Bronzeworking, as Selrahc demonstrated in FFHPBEM I. Meanwhile, Pyre Zombies don't care how strong their opponents are because their splash damage is percentage based and unlimited. Bronze warriors won't save your from either threat.
Posts: 6,212
Threads: 37
Joined: Jul 2010
Quote:Make them 5/3, give them ability to use bronze and they suddenly start to fit the role. And become a really interesting alternative to axes at the same time, even considering the high cost.
That is probably too much of a buff. Javelin throwers don't require a 67h (quick speed) Archery Range.
(16 h for a warrior + 53 g to upgrade to a 5/3 + bronze) unit = ugly unbalanced rush unit.
Posts: 2,521
Threads: 26
Joined: Oct 2010
Thoth Wrote:That is probably too much of a buff. Javelin throwers don't require a 67h (quick speed) Archery Range.
(16 h for a warrior + 53 g to upgrade to a 5/3 + bronze) unit = ugly unbalanced rush unit. Huh? Do you know how hard is it to
a) get gold for mass upgrades
b) get BW
c) get Archery
d) get roads
and do it all fast enough to make it before your target starts running around with bronze swords/axes ( or hunters, or priests, or golems )? Neither of the Mahala/Charadon/Auric techs very fast. Warrior -> Javelin upgrades are prohibitively expensive for everyone except Mahala. Auric does require Archery Ranges.
It would not be nearly as powerful as you make it sound, and copper axes still would be easier/faster to reach and more hammer effective.
|
